Class, Gender, and College Culture
Elizabeth A. Armstrong
is presumed to be about studying and grades, about
to help get a
job. And it is. But many
those attending four
pend a lot of time socializing. N
the social side of college life is
the dynamics an
d consequences of college peer cultures. Drawing on a
longitudinal ethnographic and interview study
of the experiences of a cohort of
, this book
how students create and navigate social
consequences of social su
In the fall o
room on a women’s floor
ational residence hall
at Indiana University
We sought to involve ourselves in the
lives of the 53 mostly first
year women living on the hall
class, the others from less affluent backgrounds. We
on the floor over the course of the academic
depth interviews with
Department of Sociology, Ballantine Hall 744, 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave., Indiana University, Bloomington,
Armstrong initiated research for this book in the fall of 2003 with the support of a National Academy of
education/Spencer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship. Her work on this book was supported during the
08 academic year by a Radcliffe Fellowship at Harvard University.
of these women
, and re
them as sophomore
. By senior year, 45 of the women particip
ated in at least one interview. Thirty
women participated in interviews
all 4 years.
We plan to interview the cohort again
during their first year out of college.
In this book we will sh
ow that college social life
is not merely a lighthearted
distraction from the real business of the university. Social life on campus is stratified and
segregated, providing students with differential access to desirable social networks and
acquire valuable cultural styles. The operation of student culture is one
way that higher education links class origins and destinations
most bluntly, by making
less privileged students so uncomfortable that some leave college, and making privileged
nts so comfortable that they stay in college despite, in some cases, an almost
complete lack of academic motivation
a school that some students choose because,
as they told us,
tessential” college experience
place to study
American young people
universities like this one: I
t is, after all,
at the college level
. The student
largely drawn from t
middle and upper classes, is
more economically diverse
policy makers view
as evidence that
higher education is accessible to a broad range of families,
this diversity may not be
Despite lower tuition
, particularly for in
students, Midwest public universi
ties report higher
proportions of students receiving Pell Grants
than elite privates
, suggesting greater economic diversity
U.S. News and World Report 2007).
In a study of the social backgrounds of thousands of students
attending elite universities,
y et al.
among students of color
, who were virtually all
lass or upper class backgrounds.
e found that studen
segregated themselves by class, preferring
with others like themselves.
everyday processes of affiliation and avoidance
we refer to these processes as
. Our ethnographic and lo
ngitudinal design enabled us to witness social sorting as
from initial social triumphs and rebuffs experienced during the first days on
campus through senior year reflections a
bout college experiences. We observed
ent efforts to affiliate with those perceived to be high status
and to avoid those perceived to be low status
We saw the euphoria of those
the social scene to be, at least initially, as thrilling as expected.
We heard of the misery of
cted from top houses during sorority recruitment
, and the frustrations of the less
affluent when wealthy women complained loudly in the halls about having “nothing to
We saw students leave the university, in part because of a recognition that they
ust didn’t fit. We witnessed
and to an extent suffered along with the floor
as a “mean
ted the top clique on the
nlike others on the floor,
had the opportunity to listen to her make sense of her behavior
in the years aft
moved out of the residence hall.
Class background influenced every aspect of social s
orting on campus.
women established the rules of the social g
ame on the residence hall floor.
recruitment worked to sort
oups of similarly privileged women.
lass served a critical role in
provision of the social and other resources necessary to
is, of course,
another dimension along which students sort. Due to the racial homogeneit
y of Indiana
, the floor we studied was 100% white. The racial
composition of this university and other Midwest public universities is in striking contrast to
private schools. As a consequence of decades of aggressive compet
ition for the best
minority students in
Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and top liberal arts college matriculate roughly
African Americans and have reduced the proportion of white domestic students to about 60%. In contrast,
and its peers matriculate roughly 4
5% African Americans and 80
85% white domestic students
S. News and World Report 2007)
thrive on campus outside of the Greek system. Less affluent students were more likely to
find themselves socially isolated at t
he end of the first year, more likely to leave campus
as a result of social isolation, and less likely to recover
from initial social isolation
if they stayed.
Social sorting occurred in the pursuit of
Students, particularly those from
t backgrounds, arrived at college
“the best years of their lives.”
the sort of college experience
described by older friends and
portrayed in the media
involving wild parties, lots of liquor, sexy hookups, and
. Yet they found that
fun was harder than
expected, as it
with the resources to produce fun
The pursuit of
both motivated and legitimated exclusion
felt that they were entitled to
, and that they
couldn’t possibly be expected to
with people with whom
they had nothing in common.
lass was rarely
explicitly evoked by women as they made decisions about who
to befriend and avoid. As many have obser
ved, Americans tend to be
ender style served
as a w
ay to represent and read class
omen identified as “cute” and as “
having a good personality
and thus as
were virtually always
ss and upper
was not only thin and pretty, but also tan, well
groomed, and able to select and wear
landed socially was consequential. It
through social sorting
nd within peer cultures that some of th
e deepest lessons of college were
women at the top and the bottom experienced stress and disappointment
as they found
painful to be
, and, if they made it into sororities, regulated.
people met, both as
friends and boyfriends.
Women’s class background
and trajectory usually
matched that of the men they dated.
ocial position also influenced the nature of
that women a
(Bourdieu 1973; 1984; 1996)
Living in a
in particular, had an
influence on the
embodiment of femininity, leading women to fu
rther refine an already internalized
Privileged and upwardly m
obile women also found that
refined their notions about
dating, sex, and marriage
on the path to marriage to similarly privileged, well
position in college was also
college trajectories, as
health, networks, and
shaped women’s initiative and
options as they took tentative steps toward post
This argument outlined above challenges fundamental assumptions about the
nature of higher education.
Belief that higher education is
meritocratic is fundamental to
the American dream. Parents, students, university administrators, and the field of higher
ducation scholarship alike take
for granted a set of interrelated assumptions about the
nature and purposes of
view higher education as the
social mobility and
that a college degree ensures entry into the middle
class. They assume that, once admitted to a particular school, students start with a
roughly level playing field academically and so
cially. College is assumed to be
in the classroom and over grades. Social competition,
which all but the
most uninitiated know to occur
assumed to be a harmless
. Thus, while sororities and fraternit
own to be
exclusionary on the
of class a
s not viewed as contaminating
the meritocratic core
of the university.
In contrast, we argue that social competi
tion in college is not
from academic competition or irrelev
ant to li
to question the meritocrac
y of higher education.
bout the extent to which
education in general, and
prior class advantage or promote
(see Stevens, Armstrong and Arugm 2008; Mullen, Goyette and Soares 2003
for reviews of these debates)
Most contemporary sociologica
l research, particularly in
the educational stratification tradition, sees class background as influen
destinations via the
academic side of education. Affluent, educated parents have the
resources to secure the best educatio
n for their children,
them in college
admission and in academic competition during college, and subsequently in the labor
; Mullen, Goyette and Soares 2003; Stevens 2007
Karen 1991; Karen 2002; Soares 2007; Stevens 2007)
processes in college are related
to class origins and
A body of historical literature documenting the ways that college social assisted in
the formation of the upper class exists, however.
The Organization of American Culture, 1700
, and Story’s
ging of an Aristocracy: Harvard and the Boston Upper
focused almost exclusively
the upper class and on
schools in the Northeast
ly Harvard, Yale, and Princeton
(see Baltzell 1958;
Cookson and Persell 1985; Horowitz 1987; Stevens 2007; Zweigenhaft 1993;
Zweigenhaft and Domhoff 2003)
end the study of the role college social l
the reproduction of privilege from the past to the present, and
attention to the
middle of the institutional hierarchy
It is even less common for scholars to examine how gender dynamics in higher
education may contribute to social reproduction. Holland and Eisenhart
gendered relations in college contribute to the reproduction of gender inequality. They
found that women’s participation in the culture of romance in college led women to
duce their academic and career expectations. We suggest, however, that
as well as
gender is reproduced within and through gender relations in college
Gender is a fundamental
principle of social organization
it plays a role in virtually all
. Gender conveys information about social class. Heterosexual
tend to be endoga
mous by class, which
assists in both con
and transferring it
from one generation to the next
(Arum, Budig and Roksa Forthcoming;
DiPrete and Buchmann 2006; Kalmijn 1991; Mare 1991)
. As families play a declining
role in organizing marriage
gher education plays an increasing role.
College peer cultures serve as important contexts for the formation of networks,
experiences, expectations, and s
tyles that shape marriage patterns, even when marriage
occurs years after college.
challenge dominant approaches to undergraduate education in
the field of higher education. After the influential work of Tinto
, the study of
college social life within higher education has been organized around the study of “social
, Massey et al.
, and Zweigenhaft and Domhoff
, while still focused on elite
institutions, move beyond The Big 3.
integration” or “engagement.”
It is undoubtedly true that more socially integrated
remain in college
sities are equally committed to
integrating all students.
culture is envisioned as relat
ively egalitarian and inclusive
evidence of pathology on the part of the student culture or as a result of individual
failings on the part of students
pproach, which dominates the field
little to account for the consistent evidence that minority,
working class, and other marginalized groups are routinely excluded from the mainstream
of college life at many colleges and universit
(Allen, Epps and Haniff 1991; Aries and
Seider 2005; Feagin, Vera and Imani 1996; Hurtado and Carter 1997; Stuber 2006a;
In contrast, we
that student cultures are essentially
mirroring the strati
fication of the larger
he production of exclusion is central to
student cultures, as fundamental to the stratifying project of higher education as assigning
Our findings have general theoretical implications, as exc
lusion is a general social
process. Scholars of social networks and inequality have observed that the preference for
association with like others is fundamental to the reproduction of inequality
Lovin and Cook 2001)
. Sociologists of culture have studied how studied the
symbolic boundaries that people draw between themselves a
how people come
to classify others as “worthy”
. Symbolic interactionists, building on
, have identified techniques people use to get and avoid interaction.
Ethnographers of primary and secondary education have explored how children create
perspective can be seen as resuscitating a tradition
of sociological work
abandoned in the late 1960s
(Clark and Trow 1966; Larson and Leslie 1968; Reiss 1965; Scott 1965;
local hierarchies through interaction
(Eder, Evans and Parker 1995)
. Yet there is little
fertilization among these literatures. Scholars of social networks and sociologists of
culture know little about how people pursue af
filiation with those they admire and avoid
ties with those they fear or scorn. Symbolic interactionists do not typically examine how
local strategies for getting or deflecting interaction aggregate into durable patterns of
social inequality. With the hope
of contributing to the general understanding of the
foundations of inequality, our work will integrate these traditions and identify the
interactional strategies used as women struggled for social position in this social world,
and develop the implic
ations of local strategizing and local status hierarchies for large
(see Schwalbe et al. 2000 for a review of work in this area)
college administrators, parents, and prospective
college students, as well as the field of higher education and
sociologists of education,
mily, life course, and culture. As an accessible introduction to social inequality
in the context of contemporary American undergraduate life, the book
marketed as a text for undergraduate courses in sociology, anthropology, cultural studies,
cation, gender studies, and human development. Every effort
to write for
a broad audience. W
weave profiles of individual women throughout the text in
order to personalize the narrative.
Market Position / Related Titles:
lege life is
interest to many audiences. Yet no
recently published title directly competes with th
books most similar to
this one are
Educated in Romance
, by Holland and Eisenhart
Coming of Age
in New Jersey
While dated, t
continue to sell.
focuses primarily on the
academic side of college life
(as does the only other ethnography of student life we are
aware of, Becker’s
Making the Grade
My Freshman Year
nothing about sex, drinking, popularity, or Greek life
received major media coverage
and continues t
erate strong sales suggests
interest in the American college
In the last few years,
have capitalized on this interest by offering lurid
accounts of contemporary college social life.
views college life
through the eyes of one male Harvard undergraduate.
Beer and Circus
describe college life as an anti
ellectual drunken free
Bright College Years
while more measured, skates on the surface of college life
, as does a
new history of women in college
these books, suggesting that there
audience for well
The hunger for
insight into college experience has not been satisfied by research
in the academic field of higher education. While this field
ife for the last thirty years
it tends to approach
experience from the perspective administrator
s, not students
(Astin 1993; Bowen and
Bok 1998; Bowen, Kurzweil and Tobin 2005; Boyer 1987; Kuh 1993; Le
Cureton 1998; Light 2004; Massey et al. 2003; Tinto 1987)
ful discussion of undergraduate education must being by making
clear what it is that colleges are trying to achieve.” What it is that
are trying to
Within the field, e
valuation of the extent to which colleges
oals is through the administration and analysis of
Terenzini 2005 for a comprehensive review of this research)
highlight the agendas of
d show the complexities
of their lives as they struggle
to make it through college.
No contemporary sociological study of und
ergraduate student culture
with respect to the quality of the data or the analytical leverage provided by the
ethnographic and longitudinal research design.
a year of ethnographic observation
ves of interviews
, we have d
etailed information about how our respondents
changed over the course of college, and
will have information
about how they fare in the
transition out of college. Our rapport with the
is reflected in our
high initial response rate
and low attrition from the study over time.
The class diversity of the floor
us to compare the trajectories of the
advantaged and disadvantaged over time
including the tracking of students who left the
While it is a limitation tha
our study participants were
white, we identify
the processes that produced an entirely racially homogenous floor, and discuss the efforts
that women on our floor made to diversify their friendship groups
or, more commonly,
to keep them racially homogenous
Blacks in the White Elite
(Zweigenhaft and Domhoff 2003)
gitudinal investigations of the college experiences of disadvantaged individuals. Neither has an
ethnographic component or a comparison with more privileged
focus on an aspect of college life. For example,
explores gender relations in the
Greek system, while
explores the dynamics of the hookup culture on campus.
We would be flattered to see this book compared with
Creating a Class
pective they deploy and aspire
to emulate their
rigorous style of presentation.
We also see this study as extending
a rich tradition
primary and secondary sc
(e.g. Adler and Adler 2003; Bettie 2003;
Cookson and Persell 1985; Corsaro 1997; Eckert 1989; Eder, Evans and Parker 1995;
Macleod 1987; Merten 1999; Milner 2004; Thorne 1993; Tobin, Wu and Davidson 1989;
publication pages, exclusive of notes,
The manuscript will include
relevant tables, figures (e.g. a fl
chart and network diagrams)
and possibly photographs
“party pics” t
the practice of documenting
presence at high status social events)
The last wave of
interviews will be collected by December 2009. Analysis and writing are underway and
will run concurrently with the final wave of data collection. We anticip
ate delivering a
complete book manuscript in May 2010.
Tentative Chapter Outline
The High Stakes of College Social Life
We launch the book
by contrasting the social experiences
who lived on
These profiles illustrate
the major arguments of the book
consequential for the way in which college sorts people onto different
Those who come from privileged backgrounds are advantaged in this social sorting
although skillful navigation
of college offers opportunity for upward mobil
, with particular attention to the
issues and challenges related t
o studying college peer cultu
re. We describe the data we
lives of the women who
stories are at the heart of
conclude the chapter with a roadmap to
the rest of
This chapter establishes the empirical context for the book.
e begin w
created the conditions for these
to end up at this university in this living arrange
ment at this historical moment.
We look at the
growth and diversification of higher education,
including the increasing
incorporation of women
We place Indiana University
in the larger organizational
ecology of U
higher education, noting that it is
a respectable four year residential
outside of the very elite
of American c
olleges and universities
position in the middle of the hierarchy lends particular interest to the sorting processes
students include the downwardly mobile of the upper classes, the upwardly
mobile of the working class, and
We describe the demographics of
Indiana University, in comparison to its peers.
the reputations of various residence halls and how
students are assigned to
. We describe the
on our floor,
that all were white
, and discuss
cial segregation on this campus
By most criteria the floor residents would
be viewed as strikingly homogenous
they were 18
20 year old
American women with similar education
al aspirations. N
ss, from their
point of view, the
Differences of class, religion,
region, and sexual orientation
all prove to be troubling
he first social challenge of college is nav
the freshman living environment. At
this university this means finding a social niche
on a dorm floor housing as many as
, to party with,
to walk to class
ving this problem and solving it
it is humiliating to find oneself alone and socially desperate.
From an adult
perspective, making friends in college
may look easy: H
ow could it be difficult for
to make friends wh
en surrounded by
others in the same
or some, finding a social niche on the floor and in the university was not hard.
For others, however, this problem was difficult, even insurmountable. Some were still
struggling to make friends, even
as seniors. Others left the university, in part because
they never located a social niche.
We show how and why certain styles of interac
established as dominant
on the floor and the consequences of these
rules for different
constructed from interview
reports of social relationships
with all others on the floor
show variation in success in forging ties on the
show that one’s position in the f
knowing people on campus, particularly one’s roommate
ability to successfully interact according to the local rules
Paradoxically, social success
on the floor was predicated on already having enough friends that one didn’t
make friends on
Class background was heavily linked to prior con
more affluent women arrived with
both more social ties and more locally valuable social
Chapter 3. The Party Scene
How women relate
to men when they
e out at night
s also salien
t for their position on
in relationship to both men and women. “Going out” was one of the central
activities of college
particularly during the first few weeks of freshman year. Socially
ambitious women on our floor headed out to party before they e
ven finished setting up
their dorm rooms.
Partying is not just about cutting loose and having fun
it is also about
establishing a place in campus social hierarchies.
Whether one is hot or not, sexy or
and, equally important
the “quality” of the oth
er women with whom one
, is demonstrated through being seen in
venues on weekend nights
and in “party pics” posted on Facebook
Not going out relegated one to the social
sidelines, leaving one
isolated on the floor.
Hooking up with hi
gh status men provided
public evidence of attractiveness
although hooking up too frequently or too publicly was
Navigating the fine line between sexy and slutty was an ongoing
one that class
based resources assisted one in nego
tiating more successfully.
omen are judged on the extent to which
they achieve culturally defined
of feminine beautify. This hierarchy reinforces racial and class hie
rarchies at the same
straightened or dyed
their hair or
closely emulate the “blonde” ideal
ust as the residential worlds of this campus are
ated, so are the social worlds.
The imperative to be “hot,” defined as
sexually attractive to high status men on campus,
women who did
meet these ideals. While it was
recognized that not everyone
had equal raw material
earnest efforts were appreciated, at least by other women. Women w
ho refused to even
were viewed with deep suspicion.
Even women’s views
of lesbians were shaped by
imperative, with more antipathy directed toward
lesbians who did not present
” according to heterosexual standards
It hardly needs to be stated that the (white) party scene is fueled by alcohol, and
is high on the agenda of many college students.
Alcohol, a predatory approach to
sex on the part of some men, and fraternity control over partying
environment in which nonconsensual sex is a run
mill consequence of the
production of “fun
” and status
ty to sexual assault
ecomes yet another site of
hies among women. Younger, less sophisticated, less well
connected women are
viewed as fair game for sexual exploitation, while
women dating fraternity
viewed as off limits.
This chapter will
ideas developed in papers we
have written on hooking up, sexual assault, and homophobia among women
Hamilton and Sweeney 2006; Hamilton 2007; Hamilton and Armstrong 2008)
For more than half of the upper
class and upper class women (and an
percentage of women
all of whom were affluent
), it was through
joining a sorority
social niche on campus.
It is no secret
sororities select members on the basi
s of class, race,
and adherence to conventional
American standards of feminine beauty
(DeSantis 2007; Robbins 2004)
the same time, i
n contemporary American society, particularly in higher education,
as distasteful to explicitly
because they are
or, not white,
. Sororities are thus presented with the challenge of identifying
(and excluding others)
explicit references to money or
the techniques through which
this was accomplished.
show the power of gender
style to signify class
, enabling women to literally embody and
in ways that
sisters could interpret
“money is like written all over them.”
Sorority women u
sed the term “cute”
refer to a presentation that revealed a stylish taste in clothes, the ability to pay for them,
and the physique and skill required to
“pull off” the outfit. For example, o
sorority woman explained how so
rorities might react to a woman attending recruitment in
a “cute outfit.” She explained that if a girl
“comes in a
really cute outfit,
cute, they’re going to
say something like,
this girl was so cute, she was dressed in Bill
ey happen to know the designer she was in then they might mention it.
much as it sh
ouldn’t matter, in this society
people do look at that.”
women on the floor, we
will how and why the
successful and unsuccessful ali
where they fell in
this pecking order.
utside of the Greek System
ess than half of the women on the floor joined a sorority. D
id the Greek system continue
st such a shadow over the social lives of non
Greek women? Did they feel excluded?
Did they challenge the claims to status
made by sorority women?
Did they make friends
and have a fulfilling social life? These are some of the questions addressed in this
Greek women had full, rich social lives right from the start
not Jewish and
brought to campus already
formed social networks and did not depend upon making new friends on the floor.
in the minority, however.
he majority of non
and lower middle class
found themselves socially isolated at the end
of the first year
ome, after strenuous efforts,
ended up with many friends,
emained on the margins of campus life
Still others left the university.
were shaped by
and react proactively,
the strength of their commitment
, and the degree of family support. O
n all of
these dimensions, more affluent women were advantaged.
of the working class
women (6 out of
8) left the university
In their well
regarded book about prep schools,
refer to prep
school as a “cru
cible” to convey the pain involved in
transforming a child into an upper
navigating sorority life was not easy
for the women we st
did not end (although it substantially eased) with a bid to join a
sorority. Time requirements were onerous, particularly in the stressful period of pledging
(the time between being offered a big and forma
). Living in
the sorority meant
little privacy, high s
urveillance, and lots of rules.
of this sort
tend to produce
deep and lasting
chapter begins our shift from exploring how women were sorted to
, as we delve into how the rituals and practices of sorority life led to a deeper
internalization of conventional forms of femininity.
Chapter 7. Dating and Mating for Upward Mobility
The sorting of men and women into marita
l alliances is central to the reproduction of
The role of higher education in shaping marital markets and marital strategies
is not well understood
. In this chapter we demonstrate that college sorts women into
different dating pools, influencing
not only the “quality” of the men they date in college,
but, perhaps more importantly in an era where the privileged marry well after college, re
organizing marital orientations, strategies, and
Women learn about
to meet potential h
criteria by which to evaluate
o the Real World:
Consequences of Social Sorting
fates in college,
the role of
We explore the consequenc
es of different social positions, particularly with respect to
network expansion and development of cultural capital. We show how class background,
college social success, academic performance (e.g., grades and majors), and the transition
out of college ar
For example, at the time of the last i
nterview, one working
class woman who left the university
was struggling to complete courses at a community
college while facing the rapid deterioration of an early,
marriage, while another
was heading off to take a lucrative job as an accountant. Some
variation in trajectories was a result of women’s
, how much they studied, their grades. Some was a direct consequence of class
women from more privileged backgrounds continued to get more financial
support than women from less privileged backgrounds. But
women’s social position in
college also influenced their
. Women who ended up on the margins of college
life were less like
ly than others to be on a
path toward a middle class life.
compare the trajectories
of working class and upper
class women, showing that
initial class differences were largely reproduced.
e highlight exceptions to the rule,
entifying and explaining the
s of the
en who, at this juncture, seem
to be the
most upwardly and downwardly mobile.
College Social Life Matters
influences the ways in which students are sorted with
in student peer
ege is more fun for some: Upper
class resources, socialization, and
networks provide access to the partying and revelry glorified in popular culture
Differential access to the sensual, emotional, and relational pleasures of college has
intense experiences build
shared cultural knowledge.
that sexual and romantic partners are found, and
students refine their
. They take these new ways
of relating into life beyond
e, with the
consequence that those who have had similar college experiences can easily recognize
each other (although sporting sweatshirts and bumper stickers from the alma mater helps)
and select each other as business partners, friends, and marital partn
contributes to the organization of the class structure in the United States
only through credentialing and the development of
human capital, but
the formation of class cultures and social networks.
the book by developing the
implications of our arguments.
This book suggests that students will likely attempt and succeed at thwarting efforts of
colleges and universities to try to mix up students and
encourage diverse association.
here are, how
steps that col
leges and universities can take
For example, r
from diverse networks in order to prevent large groups of privileged students from
may help, as might providing students from economic
backgrounds more assistance in both recognizing the sources of the
difficulties they experience and becoming integrated into the university.
measures sidestep t
most obvious policy implication
the dismantling of social clubs
on the basis of
race, class, gender, and
sexual orientation. The difficulty of
challenging the Greek system
the most racially exclusive organization in American
provides the final piece of evidence for our argument.
e Greek system
precisely because of elite
investment in the class reproductive features of
Elite loyalty to
particular colleges and universities is, in part,
built through the
. Threatening to eliminate the fun of college
an implicit cont
between elite families and
provide the context to allow
young the opportunity to engage in four years of exclusionary networking
the guise of innocent fun
. In turn, elite families
reward these universities by
enrolling their children,
paying full tuition
and generously supporting the
We hope that in this book
, while very re
neither innocent nor inconsequential.
Investigating College Life
In this appendix we describe the research desi
gn and methodology in detail. While we
will bring our own reactions and experiences into the text as relevant,
in this chapter we
will describe the experience of the research and
our relationships with the women on the
in more detail.
Adler, Patricia A., and Peter Adler. 2003.
Peer Power: Preadolescent Culture and
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Allen, Walter R., Edgar G. Epps, and Nesha Z. Haniff. 1991.
College in Black and White:
African American Students in Predominantly White and in Historically Black
. Albany: State University of New
Aries, Elizabeth, and Maynard Seider. 2005. "The interactive relationship between class
identity and the college experience: The case of lower income students."
Armstrong, Elizabeth A, Laura Hamilton, and Bria
n Sweeney. 2006. "Sexual assault on
campus: A multi
level, integrative approach to party rape."
Arum, Richard, Michelle J. Budig, and Josipa Roksa. Forthcoming. "The romance of
higher education: College stratification and marit
Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility
Astin, Alexander. 1993.
What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited
Baltzell, Digby E. 1958.
Philadelphia Gentlemen: The Making of a National Upper
. New York: The Free Press.
Becker, Howard S., Blanche Greer, Everett C. Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1968.
Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life
. New York: Wiley.
Bettie, Julie. 2003.
Women Without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity
of California Press.
Bogle, Kathleen A. 2008.
Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus
York: New York University Press.
Bok, Derek. 2006.
Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students
Learn and Why They Should
Be Learning More
. Princeton: Princeton University
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1973. "Cultural reproduction and social reproduction." in
Education, and Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education
by R. Brown. London: Tavistock.
Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste
. Cambridge: Harvard
The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power
. Stanford: Stanford
Bowen, William G., and Derek Bok. 1998.
of the River: Long
Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bowen, William G., Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin. 2005.
Excellence in American Higher Education
lottesville, VA: University of
Boyer, Ernest L. 1987.
The Undergraduate Experience in America
. New York: Harper &
Clark, Burton R., and Martin Trow. 1966. "The organizational context." Pp. 17
College Peer Groups: Problems and Pr
ospects for Research
, edited by Theodore
M. Newcombe and Everett K. Wilson. Chicago: Aldine.
Cookson, Peter W. Jr., and Caroline Hodges Persell. 1985.
Preparing for Power:
America's Elite Boarding Schools
. New York: Basic Books.
Corsaro, William A. 1997.
he Sociology of Childhood
. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
DeSantis, Alan D. 2007.
Inside Greek U.
Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.
DiPrete, Thomas, and Claudia Buchmann. 2006. "Gender
specific trends in the value of
education and the emer
ging gender gap in college completion."
Douthat, Ross Gregory. 2005.
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
New York: Hyperion.
Eckert, Penelope. 1989.
Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High
. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eder, Donna, Catherine Colleen Evans, and Stephen Parker. 1995.
School Talk: Gender
and Adolescent Culture
. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Feagin, Joe R., Hernan Vera, and Nikitah Imani. 1996.
of Education: Black
Students at White Colleges and Universities
. New York: Routledge.
Goffman, Erving. 1959.
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
. New York:
Goodwin, Latty L. 2006.
Graduating Class: Disadvantaged Students Crossing the Brid
of Higher Education
. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hall, Peter Dobkin. 1992.
The Organization of American Culture, 1700
Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality
. New York: New
York University Press.
lton, Laura. 2007. "Trading on heterosexuality: College women's gender strategies
Gender & Society
Hamilton, Laura, and Elizabeth A. Armstrong. 2008. "Gendered Sexuality in Emerging
Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options."
Bloomington, IN: Indiana
Hamilton, William L. 2006. "At Ole Miss, the Tailgaters Never Lose." in
The New Yort
. New York.
Holland, Dorothy, and Margaret Eisenhart. 1990.
Educated in Romance: Women,
Achievement, and College Culture
o: University of Chicago Press.
Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. 1987.
Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End
of the Eighteenth Century to the Present
. New York: Knopf.
Hurtado, Sylvia, and Deborah Faye Carter. 1997. "Effects of college transition and
perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students' sense of
Sociology of Education
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1991. "Status homogamy in the United States."
American Journal of
Karabel, Jerome. 2005.
The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton
. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Karen, David. 1991. "The politics of race, class, and gender: Access to higher education
in the United States, 1960
al of Education
. 2002. "Changes in access to higher education in the United States: 1980
Sociology of Education
Kuh, George D. 1993. "In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom."
American Educational Rese
Lamont, Michele. 1992.
Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2003.
Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life
University of California Press.
Larson, Richard F., and Gerald R. Leslie. 1968. "Prestige influences in serious dating
relationships of university students."
Levine, Arthur, and Jeanette C. Cureton. 1998.
When Hope and Fear Collid
e: A Portrait
of Today's College Student
. San Francisco: Jossey
Light, Donald J. 2004.
Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Macleod, Jay. 1987.
Ain't No Makin' It: Leveled Aspiration
s in a Low
. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Mare, Robert D. 1991. "Five decades of educational assortative mating."
Massey, Douglas S., Camille Z. Charles, Garvey Lundy, and Mary J. Fischer. 2003.
e of the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America's Selective
Colleges and Universities
. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Matthews, Anne. 1997.
Bright College Years: Inside the American Campus Today
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McGrath, Charles. 2008. "On double secret probation." in
The New York Times
McPherson, Miller M., Lynn Smith
Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. "Birds of a
feather: Homophily in social networks."
Annual Review of Sociology
E. 1999. "Enculturation into secrecy among junior high school girls."
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
Milner, Murray. 2004.
Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and
the Culture of Consumption
. New York: Routledge.
att, Michael. 1989.
Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and American Culture
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Mullen, Ann L., Kimberly A. Goyette, and Joseph A. Soares. 2003. "Who goes to
graduate school? Social and academic correlates of educati
onal continuation after
Sociology of Education
Nathan, Rebekah. 2005.
My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a
. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Pascarella, Ernest T., and Patrick T. Terenzini. 2005.
ge Affects Students: A
Third Decade of Research
. San Francisco: Jossey
Peril, Lynn. 2006.
College Girls: Bluestockings, Sex Kittens, and Coeds, Then and Now
New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Reiss, Ira. 1965. "Social class and campus dating."
Robbins, Alexandra. 2004.
Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities
. New York: Hyperion.
Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2007.
The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same
Unions and the Changing American Family
. Cambridge: Harvard Unive
Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Shealy
Thompson, and Michele Wolkomir. 2000. "Generic processes in the reproduction
of inequality: An interactionist analysis."
Scott, John Finley. 1
965. "The American college sorority: Its role in class and ethnic
American Sociological Review
Seaman, Barrett. 2005.
Binge: Campus Life in an Age of Disconnection and Excess
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Soares, Joseph A. 2007.
Power of Privilege: Yale and America's Elite Colleges
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sperber, Murray. 2000.
Beer and Circus: How Big
Time College Sports is Crippling
. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Stevens, Mitchell L. 200
Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of
. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stevens, Mitchell L., Elizabeth A. Armstrong, and Richard Arum. 2008. "Sieve,
Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Socio
Annual Review of Sociolgoy
Story, Ronald. 1980.
The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard and the Boston Upper
. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Stuber, Jenny. 2006a. "Talk of class and discursive repe
rtoires of white working and
middle class college students."
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
. 2006b. "Within the Walls and Among the Students: How White Working
Class College Students Make Sense of Social Cla
Department of Sociology
. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University.
Thorne, Barrie. 1993.
Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School
. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Tierney, William G. 1992. "An anthropological analysis of student participatio
Journal of Higher Education
Tinto, Vincent. 1987.
Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tobin, Joseph J., David Y. H. Wu, and Dana H. Davidson. 1989.
ol in Three
Cultures: Japan, China, and the United States
. New Haven: Yale University
Waller, Willard. 1937. "The rating and dating complex."
American Sociological Review
Willis, Paul. 1977.
Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get
. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zweigenhaft, Richard. 1993. "Prep school and public school graduates of Harvard: a
longitudinal study of the accumulation of social and cultural capital."
genhaft, Richard, and G. William Domhoff. 2003.
Blacks in the White Elite: Will the
Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.